impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[David Dennison 17657]

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by David Dennison

[RomaVicta 29472]

4 hours ago, kevwun said:

It was always an easy assumption that Nunes was involved in this shit because his water carrying efforts didn’t make sense for any other reason.  Nice to see it confirmed though.  I don’t know how they will be able to keep him involved in the hearings as soon as this is proven by evidence.

That's the rule I've been applying to all GOPs shamelessly lying and obfuscating with no regard for anything beyond party and themselves. It's far reaching, in my opinion. The GOP is a criminal organization.

[Gatorubet 29390]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Interesting commentary from Smerconish on CNN discussing a Washpo columnist who argued for the Dems to pursue censure instead of impeachment. Only 1 president, Jackson, has ever been censured for misconduct.

censure with some republican support might be the best victory for Dems with the 2020 election coming up.

Who gives a fuck if he is removed.  We need to present his crimes in an understandable way, and hold the GOP Senators to their votes protecting him in light of the clear evidence.    The refusal of the POTUS to provide any documents or witnesses to a lawful House impeachment proceeding, when requested, should be enough in an of itself.   

They need to get a bipartisan list of ex-Senators to sign a letter stating how badly this violates any POTUS's Oath of Office, and why it trashes the Constitutional checks and balances.. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Gatorubet

[David Dennison 17657]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

That's the rule I've been applying to all GOPs shamelessly lying and obfuscating with no regard for anything beyond party and themselves. It's far reaching, in my opinion. The GOP is a criminal organization.

I've said many times here that it is rotten to the core in addition to being corrupt from top to bottom.

Anyone who still supports the Republican Party with money or votes is a bad American. Period.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think he could.  But first someone in the Senate would have to ask a person to testify voluntarily.  Not sure how likely that is.

Meaning when the trial moves to the Senate, Republicans solely decide what witnesses, if any, will be called to testify?

[David Dennison 17657]

9 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Meaning when the trial moves to the Senate, Republicans solely decide what witnesses, if any, will be called to testify?

If all of the procedural votes are party line votes, yes.

[TwiceHorn 30715]

20 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Meaning when the trial moves to the Senate, Republicans solely decide what witnesses, if any, will be called to testify?

The managers, from the House, act as prosecutors, so maybe it's their discretion backed up by the judicial power of Roberts.  I can't currently locate the rules, but I don't recall seeing anything regarding witnesses and "compulsory process."

The rules are here.  It appears as though Articles V and VI are in conflict as to compelling testimony.

Edited November 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If all of the procedural votes are party line votes, yes.

 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The managers, from the House, act as prosecutors, so maybe it's their discretion backed up by the judicial power of Roberts.  I can't currently locate the rules, but I don't recall seeing anything regarding witnesses and "compulsory process."

So which is it?

[Patrick Bateman 3851]

19 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I guess I'm just naive, but it seems to me that if we're going to impeach him, we should probably include all of the impeachable offenses he's committed over the past three years. 

1) Abuse of power (followed by a handful of bullet points)

2) Obstruction of justice (followed by a lot of bullet points)

3) Emoluments (many, many, many bullet points)

Is the concern that Americans can't count past one?

Yes, they can barely pay attention to bribery and blackmail with Ukraine, you expect them to pay attention or care about accounting?  Most of the country understands Trump is lining his pockets with the presidency, they simply don't care.  It falls in that, "it's inappropriate, but it's not removal worthy".  Smh.

 

[David Dennison 17657]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

 

So which is it?

The Senators decide the procedural rules. The Senate therefore gets to decide if and how many witnesses testify, whether the testimony should be live, the length of the trial, and other procedural matters. That means they can refuse to hear from any or all of the witnesses who have already testified. They can also decide to hear from new witnesses. 

If the Republicans stick together, they can control the whole narrative of the trial. Of course, that poses political risks, so there is no telling how they will decide to move forward.

[atomheartbevo 88750]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Keep going. It's the only way any of us can go forward with a clean conscience. EVERYONE knows this fuck and a fuckton of his cohorts are guilty. Why they choose to shelter him remains to be seen. The only logical reason would be they're all dirty too. If we relent and cave to a weak enemy in a strong, but weakening position, then we truly have lost the republic. 

Nunes on the HIC out front shoulda told you why they are sheltering him.

[tantric superman 4667]

2 hours ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Pretty much forces most politicians to go with party over country. 

No, lack of ethics and patriotism makes politicians go with party over country.

I'm not going to give assholes a get out of jail card because "social media".

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

 

Bolton is about as big a right wing ideologue as there can be. Way more right wing than the Ws of the world.  He should be the canary in the coal mine for the actions of Trump and today's GOP.  If he could be persuaded to vote for a Dem Senator to block Trump, there is more wrong with the Republican Party than I could have ever expected. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

 

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

I guess I'm just naive, but it seems to me that if we're going to impeach him, we should probably include all of the impeachable offenses he's committed over the past three years. 

1) Abuse of power (followed by a handful of bullet points)

2) Obstruction of justice (followed by a lot of bullet points)

3) Emoluments (many, many, many bullet points)

Is the concern that Americans can't count past one?

 

57 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The concern is the calendar. Leadership does not want to drag this any further into 2020 than it has to.

 

31 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Yes, they can barely pay attention to bribery and blackmail with Ukraine, you expect them to pay attention or care about accounting?  Most of the country understands Trump is lining his pockets with the presidency, they simply don't care.  It falls in that, "it's inappropriate, but it's not removal worthy".  Smh.

 

You're all right in each of your perspectives. I mean, the other committees have not stopped investigating. Admittedly, the Oversight and Reform Committee has undergone the dual tragedy of Elijah Cumming's untimely passing (RIP) and having Jim Jordan be the Ranking Chair. The Ways and Means Committee is still working on the taxes but Mnuchin going to Mnuchin. Lastly, the Financial Services Committee is overseeing the Deutsche Bank probe and who left in the world believes that financial institution is on the up and up save the ignorant? Progress on those is slow because the principal tactic is delay delay delay. At some point the election will take and will have to take front and center. Mitch McConnell doesn't seem too concerned, so maybe he has intell that his seat is going to be okay after all. Maybe they have enough cash (they do) that they will take the Russian strategy and Parscales' data hacks and micro target, suppress and purge voters, and flood the airwaves with negative campaign ads. It's not like the DNC has a charismatic candidate that is zooming right now. There are front runners but no one has truly got people on fire. (Oh, and please Lord, tell Hillary Clinton to focus on her retirement-she is actively hurting the party at this point).

The average non politico citizen is only going to give this cursory attention even if there were hookers in trees. "Sucks to their ass-mar."

But I agree with you @Red Five in spirit, but I think they are going to run into the clock winding down.Too much yardage to cover with no timeouts and a Hail Mary is too risky politically.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

48 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Senators decide the procedural rules. The Senate therefore gets to decide if and how many witnesses testify, whether the testimony should be live, the length of the trial, and other procedural matters. That means they can refuse to hear from any or all of the witnesses who have already testified. They can also decide to hear from new witnesses. 

If the Republicans stick together, they can control the whole narrative of the trial. Of course, that poses political risks, so there is no telling how they will decide to move forward.

What risk?  They could get landslided in the House, but real power is in the Senate. 90% of their Senate seats are safe no matter what they do. 

At some point, we need to look at Fox News as a threat to national security. Most of their editorialized programs already fall outside the definition of "media."  And all first amendment rights have limits.  How long can they be permitted to scream fire in a crowded theater?  

Much of this occurred after the end of the Fairness Doctrine. Perhaps we should just bring that back, expand it to include political editorials, and save our country. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[David Dennison 17657]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What risk?  They could get landslided in the House, but real power is in the Senate. 90% of their Senate seats are safe no matter what they do. 

At some point, we need to look at Fox News as a threat to national security. Most of their editorialized programs already fall outside the definition of "media."  And all first amendment rights have limits.  How long can they be permitted to scream fire in a crowded theater?  

Much of this occurred after the end of the Fairness Doctrine. Perhaps we should just bring that back, expand it to include political editorials, and save our country. 

The risk to losing their majority. There are a handful of Republicans up for re-election that are in danger of losing next November. If enough of them do, even if Doug Jones loses in Alabama, the Democrats could take the Senate.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The risk to losing their majority. There are a handful of Republicans up for re-election that are in danger of losing next November. If enough of them do, even if Doug Jones loses in Alabama, the Democrats could take the Senate.

I want to go after Cornyn. They say he will win, but there is a chance. If Trump's health holds and he holds some rallies like he did in Kentucky/LA, perhaps the anti-Trump contingent will vote in greater numbers. Trump is a liability in that regard but is stubborn. That may be the excuse the GOP uses (health) to prohibit and limit his travel. and his damage.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

With respect to Fox, I do believe there is a need to revisit some of the regulations w/o violating First Amendment rights. The FCC already has some special rules regarding news content and false information so there is some precedent that needs to be set on behalf of national security and agents acting against public interest and integrity.

[Gatorubet 29390]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The Senators decide the procedural rules. The Senate therefore gets to decide if and how many witnesses testify, whether the testimony should be live, the length of the trial, and other procedural matters. That means they can refuse to hear from any or all of the witnesses who have already testified. They can also decide to hear from new witnesses. 

If the Republicans stick together, they can control the whole narrative of the trial. Of course, that poses political risks, so there is no telling how they will decide to move forward.

Quote

 PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES 
                                 SENATE

                      I. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

    The provisions of the United States Constitution which 
apply specifically to impeachment are as follows:

                     Article I; Section 2, Clause 5

          The House of Representatives . . . shall have the 
        sole Power of Impeachment.

                 Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

          The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
        Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall 
        be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the 
        United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall 
        preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the 
        Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
          Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend 
        further than to removal from Office, and 
        disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, 
        Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party 
        convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to 
        Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according 
        to Law.

                    Article II; Section 2, Clause 1

          The President . . . shall have Power to grant 
        Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United 
        States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

                         Article II; Section 4

          The President, Vice President and all civil Officers 
        of the United States, shall be removed from Office on 
        Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, 
        or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

                    Article III; Section 2, Clause 3

          The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of 
        Impeachment, shall be by Jury; . . .

   II. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON 
                           IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

    I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the 
House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their 
part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are 
directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the 
Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of 
Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the 
managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of 
impeachment, agreeably to such notice.
    II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced 
at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready 
to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the 
Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at 
Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making 
proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ``All persons 
are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while 
the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the 
United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ ''; 
after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the 
Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that 
the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the 
impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of 
Representatives.
    III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the 
Senate shall, at 1 o'clock after noon of the day (Sunday 
excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by 
the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and 
shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) 
after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the 
Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much 
longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding 
to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the 
Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter 
provided to the Members of the Senate then present and to the 
other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it 
shall be to take the same.
    IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice 
President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties 
of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be 
impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall 
preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to 
preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer 
of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration 
of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a request to 
attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the 
oath by the Presiding Officer of the Senate and shall preside 
over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and 
upon the trial of the person impeached therein.
    V. The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and 
issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all 
orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules 
or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other 
regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may 
authorize or provide.
    VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of 
witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, 
precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a 
summary waycontempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, 
orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful 
orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive 
to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction 
of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary 
to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, 
writs, and precepts of the Senate.
    VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all 
necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding 
Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings 
while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an 
impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise 
specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on the trial 
may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not 
limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy 
of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand 
as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate 
shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it 
shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; 
or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such 
question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such 
questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the 
Standing Rules of the Senate.
    VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and 
the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ 
of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said 
articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a 
day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such 
writ, and file his answer to said articles of impeachment, and 
to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate 
thereon; which writ shall be served by such officer or person 
as shall be named in the precept thereof, such number of days 
prior to the day fixed for such appearance as shall be named in 
such precept, either by the delivery of an attested copy 
thereof to the person impeached, or if that cannot conveniently 
be done, by leaving such copy at the last known place of abode 
of such person, or at his usual place of business in some 
conspicuous place therein; or if such service shall be, in the 
judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the person 
impeached to appear shall be given in such other manner, by 
publication or otherwise, as shall be deemed just; and if the 
writ aforesaid shall fail of service in the manner aforesaid, 
the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service 
may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct. If the 
person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either 
in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed thereof as 
aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such 
articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, 
as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be 
entered, judgment may be entered thereon without further 
proceedings.
    IX. At 12:30 o'clock afternoon of the day appointed for the 
return of the summons against the person impeached, the 
legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be 
suspended, and the Secretary of the Senate shall administer an 
oath to the returning officer in the form following, viz: ``I, 
------ ------, do solemnly swear that the return made by me 
upon the process issued on the ------ ------ day of ------, by 
the Senate of the United States, against ------ ------ is truly 
made, and that I have performed such service as therein 
described: So help me God.'' Which oath shall be entered at 
large on the records.
    X. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and 
answer the articles of impeachment against him. If he appears, 
or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, 
stating particularly if by himself, or by agent or attorney, 
naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he 
appears. If he do not appear, either personally or by agent or 
attorney, the same shall be recorded.
    XI. That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding 
Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appoint a 
committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony at 
such times and places as the committee may determine, and for 
such purpose the committee so appointed and the chairman 
thereof, to be elected by the committee, shall (unless 
otherwise ordered by the Senate) exercise all the powers and 
functions conferred upon the Senate and the Presiding Officer 
of the Senate, respectively, under the rules of procedure and 
practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials.
    Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of 
procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on 
impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of 
the committee so appointed. The committee so appointed shall 
report to the Senate in writing a certified copy of the 
transcript of the proceedings and the testimony had and given 
before such committee, and such report shall be received by the 
Senate and the evidence so received and the testimony so taken 
shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject to the 
right of the Senate to determine competency, relevancy, and 
materiality, as having been received and taken before the 
Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent the Senate from 
sending for any witness and hearing his testimony in open 
Senate, or by order of the Senate having the entire trial in 
open Senate.
    XII. At 12:30 o'clock afternoon, or at such other hour as 
the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the trial of an 
impeachment, the legislative and executive business of the 
Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary shall give notice 
to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to 
proceed upon the impeachment of ------ ------, in the Senate 
Chamber.
    XIII. The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit 
upon the trial of an impeachment shall be (unless otherwise 
ordered) 12 o'clock m.; and when the hour shall arrive, the 
Presiding Officer upon such trial shall cause proclamation to 
be made, and the business of the trial shall proceed. The 
adjournment of the Senate sitting in said trial shall not 
operate as an adjournment of the Senate; but on such 
adjournment the Senate shall resume the consideration of its 
legislative and executive business.
    XIV. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the 
proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of 
legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the 
same manner as the legislative proceedings of the Senate.
    XV. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and 
be heard upon an impeachment.
    XVI. All motions, objections, requests, or applications 
whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating 
immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to 
admission of evidence or other questions arising during the 
trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed 
to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall 
require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the 
Secretary's table.
    XVII. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf 
of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one 
person on the other side.
    XVIII. If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be 
sworn, and give his testimony standing in his place.
    XIX. If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, 
or to a manager, or to counsel of the person impeached, or to 
offer a motion or order (except a motion to adjourn), it shall 
be reduced to writing, and put by the Presiding Officer. The 
parties or their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses 
answering questions propounded at the request of any Senator 
and the merits of any such objection may be argued by the 
parties or their counsel. Ruling on any such objection shall be 
made as provided in Rule VII. It shall not be in order for any 
Senator to engage in colloquy.
    XX. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial 
of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be kept open, 
unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while 
deliberating upon its decisions. A motion to close the doors 
may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, 
the motion shall be voted on without debate by the yeas and 
nays, which shall be entered on the record.
    XXI. All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all 
motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour (unless the 
Senate otherwise orders) on each side.
    XXII. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one 
person. The final argument on the merits may be made by two 
persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate 
upon application for that purpose), and the argument shall be 
opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.
    XXIII. An article of impeachment shall not be divisible for 
the purpose of voting thereon at any time during the trial. 
Once voting has commenced on an article of impeachment, voting 
shall be continued until voting has been completed on all 
articles of impeachment unless the Senate adjourns for a period 
not to exceed one day or adjourns sine die. On the final 
question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and 
nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; 
and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles 
presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the 
Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but 
if the person impeached shall be convicted upon any such 
article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, the 
Senate may proceed to the consideration of such other matters 
as may be determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing 
judgment. Upon pronouncing judgment, a certified copy of such 
judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of 
State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of 
impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.

Form of putting the question on each article of impeachment

    The Presiding Officer shall first state the question; 
thereafter each Senator, as his name is called, shall rise in 
his place and answer: guilty or not guilty.
    XXIV. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon 
without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders and 
decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, 
which shall be entered on the record, subject, however, to the 
operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be closed 
for deliberation, and in that case no Member shall speak more 
than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on 
an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen 
minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, 
to be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be 
decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by 
one-fifth of the Members present. The fifteen minutes herein 
allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final 
question, and not on the final question on each article of 
impeachment.
    XXV. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form, viz: 
``You, ------ ------, do swear (or affirm, as the case may be) 
that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending 
between the United States and ------ ------, shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: so help you 
God.'' Which oath shall be administered by the Secretary, or 
any other duly authorized person.

 

[Gatorubet 29390]

"VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate."

If the Chief Justice overrules a GOP claim that evidence is not relevant or is redundant, the Turtle can object and the GOP Senate can out-vote him?   That would suck.

 

[David Dennison 17657]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

"VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate."

If the Chief Justice overrules a GOP claim that evidence is not relevant or is redundant, the Turtle can object and the GOP Senate can out-vote him?   That would suck.

 

If they can manage to stick together, the Republicans will be in complete control of the proceedings and there's not much Democrats can do about it.

 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5695]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If they can manage to stick together, the Republicans will be in complete control of the proceedings and there's not much Democrats can do about it.

 

The optics of overruling Roberts though.....does it even matter anymore? 

[atomheartbevo 88750]

48 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What risk?  They could get landslided in the House, but real power is in the Senate. 90% of their Senate seats are safe no matter what they do. 

They don't act like their majority is safe at all.  There is a reason why they are angry about the impeachment, and angry that they will have to publicly defend Trump.  It's not like Gym Jordan and the other Reps who have districts designed to help them win, where his 65% in 2018 could drop almost 15 points and he would still win in 2020.

All the Dems have to flip is what, 4?  

• Martha McSally in Arizona couldn't win last year, and had to be appointed.
• Cory Gardner won in Colorado by 1.9% in 2014
• Johnny Isakson is retiring in Georgia this year, and it's a special election next year
• David Perdue in Georgia won by 7.2% in 2014
• Joni Ernst - won in Iowa by 8.3%
• Pat Roberts in Kansas is not running (won by around 10%)
• Cindy Hyde-Smith won MS by 7.4% in the special election last year (6 points less than her predecessor)
• Thom Thillis won by 1.5% in North Carolina in 2014.
• Dan Sullivan won Alaska by 2.2% in 2014
• Bill Cassidy won Louisiana by 11 points in 2014
• Mike Rounds got 50.4% in South Dakota in 2014 against a divided field.
• Lamar Alexander - Tennessee, not running

Now I know that some of those races/states are marked as safe for Republicans next year (and I left out R candidates that won by 15 points or more), but as a whole, Donnie, Turtle, and Linda do not act like the Rs controlling the Senate next year is a sure thing.  Turtle tries to project an air of confidence, but when you drill down, there's plenty of paranoia, plenty of anger.  

I think the anger is from having to defend Trump.  I think the paranoia is from the majority margin being too slim for his liking, and from too many tight races (even just a few tight races are too many for Mitch), and the possibility that we will see more Devin Nunes-types of surprises in the Senate, or at the very least, Senate Republicans running next year will be carrying Trump on their backs.

An alpha male who is confident of his position does not act like the Republican leadership of 2019.

[atomheartbevo 88750]

2 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

The optics of overruling Roberts though.....does it even matter anymore? 

The optics of overruling a conservative/Republican Chief Justice is pretty damned severe, and reeks of desperation, paranoia, and guilt.

No Republican running next year wants that on their record.

With that said, I don't see them overruling Roberts - by letting Roberts do his thing, the blame for such things is off the shoulder of Senate Republicans (until they vote).

Senate Republicans would be more than happy if the public were pissed at Roberts.

Edited November 23, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[GRHorn 105]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

MMT is garbage, but the Republican fiscal posture at the moment is essentially what MMT would look like in practice.

There's a reason she is the senior economic adviser to Bernie and not Trump. You can propose free everything (Medicare, College) when you literally do not care about the cost or consequences of it.

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Yeah, umm, GR, please DO tell what monetary/economic theory that your GodTrump has brought to the table and executed. Seriously, this is going to be FASCINATING. Bonus points if you can make it sound at all coherent.

Spin away, GR, we await your tales. Dis gon be gud.

 

Only on Surly can it be that if you sporadically support various things the President does, that he's your God.

Trump hasnt brought anything new to the table. He wants to spend just like all the others. He has fit in the swamp quite well as far as that goes. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

In Kansas, is anyone going to run on the R ticket besides Pompeo?

[TwiceHorn 30715]

14 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

The optics of overruling Roberts though.....does it even matter anymore? 

They wouldn't be overruling Roberts.  He's like a judge.  He doesn't grant motions that aren't made by the parties.  Before Roberts could order someone to testify, an order would have to issue from the Senate for that person to testify.

The managers could request the Senate to order/ask a witness to testify, but if the Senate decides they don't want to hear that witness, or any witnesses, then Roberts would have no opportunity to rule on the issue and order a witness to testify.

At least that's the way I read it.  There could be other interpretations.  But you can pretty much rest assured that McConnell and the Senate at large aren't going to "lose control" of the proceeding.

Also, that's under the current rules.  AFAIK there is nothing preventing the Senate from adopting new rules right in the middle of it, or modifying them by resolution.  The ex post facto clause probably doesn't apply to Senate rules, even in cases of impeachment.

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I want to go after Cornyn. They say he will win, but there is a chance. If Trump's health holds and he holds some rallies like he did in Kentucky/LA, perhaps the anti-Trump contingent will vote in greater numbers. Trump is a liability in that regard but is stubborn. That may be the excuse the GOP uses (health) to prohibit and limit his travel. and his damage.

 

 

[Mo Horn 8680]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

In Kansas, is anyone going to run on the R ticket besides Pompeo?

Several have already declared, including Kris Kobach. 

[triplehorn 2664]

3 hours ago, Red Five said:

I guess I'm just naive, but it seems to me that if we're going to impeach him, we should probably include all of the impeachable offenses he's committed over the past three years. 

1) Abuse of power (followed by a handful of bullet points)

2) Obstruction of justice (followed by a lot of bullet points)

3) Emoluments (many, many, many bullet points)

Is the concern that Americans can't count past one?

Not naive.  In fact, Pelosi has signaled from the start that they wouldn't proceed with articles of impeachment unless they have an "ironclad case."  That will NOT be the case prior to the start of 2020.  Too much is outstanding in the courts that will destroy Trump and fill GOP Senate with absolute dread.  It will take some time, but Trump will ultimately lose in the courts on everything.  The payoff for being patient is likely enormous.  House won't formally impeach Trump until it has maximal potential to disembowel Senate GOP for acquittal.  Not there yet, but will be by early 2020.

Signals now about moving expeditiously are almost assuredly about perception management and not dragging it out intentionally.  Meanwhile more evidentiary revelations come out by the hour.  See new evidence in Roger Stone trial showing Trump lied to Mueller, and last night's revelations about Pompeo and Nunes running a coordinated Russian disinfo campaign with Rudy and Putin-linked mobsters to influence the 2020 election.

Edited November 23, 2019 by triplehorn

[Gatorubet 29390]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, that's under the current rules.  AFAIK there is nothing preventing the Senate from adopting new rules right in the middle of it, or modifying them by resolution.  The ex post facto clause probably doesn't apply to Senate rules, even in cases of impeachment.

As long as there is no direct rule from the Constitution's language on impeachment contradicting a Senate Rule, the Presiding Officer is to follow the Senate Rules.   Which I assume the Turtle will pass by majority vote.  He could do it on the fly. Graham and company don't give a shit how it looks, so long as their boy is not removed.  Hell, if the Turtle brought up a censure vote on the conduct after voting against impeachment that would get all dems and many GOPs, most of the country would return to watching Real Housewives satisfied that justice was done. 

[Gatorubet 29390]

23 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Not naive.  In fact, Pelosi has signaled from the start that they wouldn't proceed with articles of impeachment unless they have an "ironclad case."  That will NOT be the case prior to the start of 2020.  Too much is outstanding in the courts that will destroy Trump and fill GOP Senate with absolute dread.  It will take some time, but Trump will ultimately lose in the courts on everything.  The payoff for being patient is likely enormous.  House won't formally impeach Trump until it has maximal potential to disembowel Senate GOP for acquittal.  Not there yet, but will be by early 2020.

 

I now this sound all Hugo-ish, but I think there is still a fair chance that the House Committees that already have Trump's banking records and tax info could present a money laundering or bank fraud count to Pelosi to send up.    The point is, it is only the Russians who funded Trump after his umpteenth bankruptcy.   He has denied it a zillion times.  You could tie in his money laundering with Putin's buddies to his constant Putin dick sucking in a way that the average Joe might just get.    Trump written response to Mueller  denied having any old or new investment projects in Russia.    If he did, then that could be a pretty easy lie to prove, and would be obstruction.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

39 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Not naive.  In fact, Pelosi has signaled from the start that they wouldn't proceed with articles of impeachment unless they have an "ironclad case."  That will NOT be the case prior to the start of 2020.  Too much is outstanding in the courts that will destroy Trump and fill GOP Senate with absolute dread.  It will take some time, but Trump will ultimately lose in the courts on everything.  The payoff for being patient is likely enormous.  House won't formally impeach Trump until it has maximal potential to disembowel Senate GOP for acquittal.  Not there yet, but will be by early 2020.

Signals now about moving expeditiously are almost assuredly about perception management and not dragging it out intentionally.  Meanwhile more evidentiary revelations come out by the hour.  See new evidence in Roger Stone trial showing Trump lied to Mueller, and last night's revelations about Pompeo and Nunes running a coordinated Russian disinfo campaign with Rudy and Putin-linked mobsters to influence the 2020 election.

The biggest fear Moscow Mitch should have is someone rolling over on him with respect to Deripaska, Rusal, Manafort and Kilimnik. The former NSA guy McMaster tried to hit the Russians with economic sanctions but McConnell got most of that out of the way and Kentucky got its plant. But there is a lot more there, there. A lot more. Even without some of the other Russian dollars he has from other oligarchs. His delay in passing critical election safeguards is only the tip of the election interference iceberg.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I now this sound all Hugo-ish, but I think there is still a fair chance that the House Committees that already have Trump's banking records and tax info could present a money laundering or bank fraud count to Pelosi to send up.    The point is, it is only the Russians who funded Trump after his umpteenth bankruptcy.   He has denied it a zillion times.  You could tie in his money laundering with Putin's buddies to his constant Putin dick sucking in a way that the average Joe might just get.    Trump written response to Mueller  denied having any old or new investment projects in Russia.    If he did, then that could be a pretty easy lie to prove, and would be obstruction.

Also this. If they have the records, then you would really really like to subpoena Justin Kennedy, formerly of Deutsche Bank. Then you would want to see just what kind of a deal got brokered between his dad, (former Justice Kennedy) and Trump for Kavanaugh to take his place on SCOTUS. Some of that has been stretched to some conspiracy theories, but the plain truth is probably a lot worse.

[Bama Chick 28595]

Cross posting from the Nunes thread -


CNN reporter who broke the Parnas/Nunes story last night -

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Also this. If they have the records, then you would really really like to subpoena Justin Kennedy, formerly of Deutsche Bank. Then you would want to see just what kind of a deal got brokered between his dad, (former Justice Kennedy) and Trump for Kavanaugh to take his place on SCOTUS. Some of that has been stretched to some conspiracy theories, but the plain truth is probably a lot worse.

Mrs Wiggins=Triple Horn sock. Just need you to post some Eric Garland or Louise Mensch tweets. 

[CowboyFred 1130]

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They wouldn't be overruling Roberts.  He's like a judge.  He doesn't grant motions that aren't made by the parties.  Before Roberts could order someone to testify, an order would have to issue from the Senate for that person to testify.

The managers could request the Senate to order/ask a witness to testify, but if the Senate decides they don't want to hear that witness, or any witnesses, then Roberts would have no opportunity to rule on the issue and order a witness to testify.

At least that's the way I read it.  There could be other interpretations.  But you can pretty much rest assured that McConnell and the Senate at large aren't going to "lose control" of the proceeding.

Also, that's under the current rules.  AFAIK there is nothing preventing the Senate from adopting new rules right in the middle of it, or modifying them by resolution.  The ex post facto clause probably doesn't apply to Senate rules, even in cases of impeachment.

As I understood it, the only way to overrule any decisions from Roberts regarding relevance of witnesses, evidence, etc. is by vote of the Senate which in turn is not reviewable by the courts.  IMO any attempt by Senate to overturn any rulings that Roberts makes SHOULD (not sure if those that are so up GOP's ass would care) be a cause for concern as the optics of that action would be seen as basically saying GOP senators have a better understanding of the law.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Mrs Wiggins=Triple Horn sock. Just need you to post some Eric Garland or Louise Mensch tweets. 

Gah! What is it with people thinking I am somebody's sock?

[Tuco 5003]

So is Nunes suing the media? It seems to me, if I were innocent, I’d be bitching about Lev and his attorney. What an odd reaction.

[atomheartbevo 88750]

45 minutes ago, Tuco said:

So is Nunes suing the media? It seems to me, if I were innocent, I’d be bitching about Lev and his attorney. What an odd reaction.

If you can't attack what's actually being said, attack the process or the medium in which it's presented.

Nunes and Co. did this throughout the HIC testimonies - don't dispute what's being said (because it can be confirmed through multiple people), attack the messenger/process/etc. (or whistleblower, the Democrats, the rules, etc.).

[GRHorn 105]

6 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

What risk?  They could get landslided in the House, but real power is in the Senate. 90% of their Senate seats are safe no matter what they do. 

At some point, we need to look at Fox News as a threat to national security. Most of their editorialized programs already fall outside the definition of "media."  And all first amendment rights have limits.  How long can they be permitted to scream fire in a crowded theater?  

Much of this occurred after the end of the Fairness Doctrine. Perhaps we should just bring that back, expand it to include political editorials, and save our country. 

Amazing post. You’re right, the only non leftist Tv network is the problem. Get rid of it and we can save our country. 🤦‍♂️ 

[JimmyJames 12267]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Amazing post. You’re right, the only non leftist Tv network is the problem. Get rid of it and we can save our country. 🤦‍♂️ 

Its a foreign funded propaganda network designed to influence dumbasses like yourself, and its very effective in doing so with constant lies and propaganda.

It should be shut down just so you can have something to bitch about on the net. When you’re on a break from your great life of course.

[achooloco 961]

7 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Mrs Wiggins=Triple Horn sock. Just need you to post some Eric Garland or Louise Mensch tweets. 

You support a child abuser. Fuck you, sit on this, fuck your family.

[Bama Chick 28595]

lol at the envelope detail

[Fudge Nuggets 18825]

17 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Of course, that poses political risks, so there is no telling how they will decide to move forward.

[Fudge Nuggets 18825]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

They wouldn't be overruling Roberts.  He's like a judge. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Walter asking questions as usual. I'm a fan club member.

 

[David Dennison 17657]

13 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Amazing post. You’re right, the only non leftist Tv network is the problem. Get rid of it and we can save our country. 🤦‍♂️ 

America would be a better place without Fox News.

 

[Rougarou 594]

Posted on the wrong thread:

For a noob who isn’t so smart; what is the net sum of all these proceedings and court room events? Is this happening gif or not? Please not another variation of “let’s see how he gets out of this one!” Meme

[Message Board User 12382]